JF-17 PFX program

[Ibbi32]

ignoring the above speculation,

i think its becoming increasingly clear the PAF is going to need a proper twin seater if it wishes to get behind the loyal wingman trend.

The J-10 cant do the job, pilot workload would be significant

The JF-17 i fear may just not be able to have space for all the additional kit required, plus, youd probably be looking at a cockpit redesign, plus with little fuel capacity and whatnot, its not an ideal solution

Unless the Chinese come up with a twin seat J-35, which i guess isnt unlikely but isnt the most optimal solution (maintenance intensive, high cost, high cpfh, more sensitive etc)

i do feel like if the PAF had an option, it would want some sino flankers... I wonder if theres ANY way in the world the PAF can get their hands on them...

the Russian MiG 35 offer to Pakistan was effectively like, heres an airframe, customise it as you wish.

With Russia tied up in Ukraine, i do wonder, if there was a genuine solid push from Pak, could Russia grant China licenses to export something to Pakistan...

Because even now, i wonder whether the PAF would buy new F-16's, or would the PAF make a push for F-15s or 18's instead if the US option was on the table.

Typhoons i guess are the PAF's only real option, but the issue is of the restrictions that would come with, particularly when it comes to a strike focused, LwM config, not many countries would want to get behind that as theres a real risk of nuclear wpn carriage.

I just think, the PAF, if serious about the next gen, may need to switch over its procurement priorities and start looking for something heavier and better suited for being a node in a larger combat system, or rather, something capable of handling command and control. The issue with a JF-17XL is China is much more interested in the bigger fish, will they want to dedicate resources to a project that isnt going to be massively commercially viable? On top of that, will the PAF even be able to afford it? etc etc. I do wonder what the PAF is thinking on this front, it needs something on this front

@puttputt @Oscar

Regarding this in particular i believe the easiest aircraft to acquire from china would be su-30Mk/mk2s. J-16s and j-15s being rapidly inducted in plaaf and plan service means these aircraft are rather old but much like how Chinese are upgrading their planes such as j-11BG we could do the same with these. Not to mention that its far easier for russia to allow china to re export 20 year old airframes than to set precedent of exporting chinese flankers

 

[Michael]

Regarding this in particular i believe the easiest aircraft to acquire from china would be su-30Mk/mk2s. J-16s and j-15s being rapidly inducted in plaaf and plan service means these aircraft are rather old but much like how Chinese are upgrading their planes such as j-11BG we could do the same with these. Not to mention that its far easier for russia to allow china to re export 20 year old airframes than to set precedent of exporting chinese flankers

China has not carried out extensive modifications to these original Russian-made fighter jets. It now appears that they are considered very outdated.

These fighter jets are mainly deployed in non-frontline units and in units simulating enemy forces. Previously released official photos showed a batch of PLAAF Su-30 fighter jets with camouflage paint schemes simulating those of the Vietnamese Air Force.

Su-35s occasionally appear in the airspace over the South China Sea.

China is unlikely to sell these fighter jets, nor is it likely to extensively modify them (due to economic considerations).

 

[Michael]

@Pakistan Space Agency @FuturePAF @SiliconBit (silicon0000)

Based on some known conditions, I used AI to analyze some of my ideas.

Conditions:
Saudi Arabia provides financial support, China provides technical support, and Pakistan is responsible for production and manufacturing. China provides a complete medium-sized single-engine 5th-generation fighter jet platform solution based on a deep modification of the J-10C fighter jet platform. It includes a single-seat standard version and a two-seat derivative version.
1. The initial version is based on the mature subsystems of the J-10CE, including radar, engine, avionics system, etc., while later versions will gradually adopt more advanced subsystems.
2. The two-seat derivative version can be developed into: a dedicated trainer aircraft version, a ground/sea attack aircraft version, a UCAV/CCA command aircraft version, etc.

Target customer group:
This solution is highly attractive to the global arms market.
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should be the primary target customers.
However, because this solution conflicts with China's existing solutions, China is unlikely to make large-scale purchases. However, China may symbolically purchase a small number of units for the international sales of this solution. This depends on the cooperation model between the three countries on this solution.

AI analysis of the challenges and risks of this solution: (There are many advantages, so I won't list them in detail. We will only discuss the difficult parts)

Challenges and Risks for China:
1. Risk of Technology Leakage.
If China does not use more advanced and confidential technologies in this plan, it will be difficult for it to be competitive and meet the requirements of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. However, if China invests too much advanced and confidential technology, it faces a significant risk of leakage. Pakistan's domestic political environment is complex and faces strong external intelligence pressure. Once these core technologies are acquired by a third party (especially the United States) due to battle damage, crashes, or internal leaks, it will cause a catastrophic blow to China's national security and the confidentiality of core equipment such as the J-20 fighter jet.
2. Geopolitical Balance and International Public Opinion Pressure.
This plan will completely change the current international order. The biggest variable is that India may therefore completely and entirely align itself with the United States, becoming a "vassal state" of the US. This is inconsistent with China's current international diplomatic strategy.
AI believes that this is an international diplomatic "trump card" in China's hands. China can play this card at the appropriate time, but not now.

Challenges and Risks for Pakistan:
1. Pakistan's industrial capacity cannot support the large-scale production and manufacturing of such advanced fighter jets (referring only to airframe manufacturing and final assembly, excluding the production and manufacturing of subsystems). That is, it may generate a large number of orders, but it will be difficult for Pakistan to complete these orders quickly.
2. Procurement Cost Pressure. Pakistan's financial situation cannot support the PAF's large-scale procurement of this type of fighter jet. AI analysis suggests that the price of this type of fighter jet may be between $80 million and $120 million (different versions).

Implementation steps recommended by AI:
Step 1: Prioritize in-depth cooperation on the J-10CE fighter jet. China can help Pakistan fully absorb and master the relevant technologies of the J-10CE fighter jet, and can try to develop a two-seat version based on the J-10CE. Consider providing Pakistan with the capability to assemble and manufacture the J-10CE.
Step 2: China will gradually transfer some advanced fighter jet subsystem technologies to this platform. China and Pakistan will gradually upgrade the J-10C platform to a 5th-generation fighter jet.

This is for entertainment purposes only; please do not overinterpret it.

 

[Oscar]

China and Pakistan will gradually upgrade the J-10C platform to a 5th-generation fighter jet.

And on that note it entertains. Which is why AI Is best left for fact checks and streamlining thoughts - not original thought creation.

 

[Michael]

And on that note it entertains. Which is why AI Is best left for fact checks and streamlining thoughts - not original thought creation.

YES.
AI can help us, but it cannot replace us.
The final decision still requires human intelligence.

 

[SiliconBit (silicon0000)]

I thought I had explained it clearly...
All right. I'll try a different way of explaining it.

Almost all modern UCAV/CCA (including those in presentations and those already in existence) employ stealth design. Their size and performance specifications are roughly equivalent to light/medium 5th-generation fighter jets.

I've already explained this. Due to limitations in modern communication technology and command and control methods, these UCAVs/CCAs require close-range control. This requires the command aircraft to have performance characteristics similar to those of the UCAVs/CCAs. At the very least, the command aircraft's flight speed, altitude, range, and endurance cannot differ too significantly from those of the UCAVs/CCAs.

Platforms like the "Embraer Lineage 1000E business jet" clearly cannot meet this requirement. Even if we were to extensively modify the JF-17B platform for this task, its performance would still be far superior.

Simply put, the command platform for UCAV/CCA operations needs to be based on a fighter jet platform. The capabilities of the command aircraft platform will affect the overall combat effectiveness of the MUM-T formation. This is also why the PLAAF uses the J-20S as its command platform. Single-seat 5th-generation fighter jets have some capabilities in this regard, but they cannot be compared to the combat effectiveness of dedicated two-seat command aircraft. (The F-35/J-35A also has some capabilities in this area).

Non-stealthy, heavy, two-seat 4.5th-generation fighter jets (such as the Chinese Flanker series fighters) could theoretically also be used for this purpose. However, due to their non-stealthy design, the command aircraft itself would be the first to be detected by the enemy and become a target for attack. But it could be feasible if used against enemies with weak air detection capabilities.
Light and medium-weight two-seat 4.5th-generation fighter jets (such as the JF-17B and J-10S), if used for this purpose, would have their operational range severely limited by the power generation capacity of their engines. This is not a reasonable option.

Many scientific and technical papers mention that modern advanced fighter jets are increasingly emphasizing their power generation capabilities, with a growing proportion of the engine's energy being allocated to power generation.

For the fighter jet industry, funding is not the only problem. Sufficient funds allow you to buy fighter jets, but when you want to manufacture them yourself, another issue arises: "industry."

Theoretically, it wouldn't be difficult for Saudi Arabia to provide the funding and Pakistan to obtain a complete fighter jet design based on a mature 5th-generation fighter jet platform from China, with deep customization. Alternatively, there wouldn't be much of a problem if China were to design a 5th-generation fighter jet specifically for Pakistan. Of course, Pakistan can be renamed to whatever name you like.

But, independently manufacturing these fighter jets is a completely different matter.

The fighter jet industry is also an industry. It must follow the most basic logic of industrial development.
The JF-17 project is a China-Pakistani cooperation project. Pakistan possesses all the technology for manufacturing the aircraft's airframe, but has not yet achieved 100% localization of its airframe manufacturing. I haven't even started talking about the more challenging manufacturing work involved in fighter jet subsystems.

Industrial development must follow its fundamental logic, diligently completing each basic task step by step.

First of all, thank you, dear, for your comprehensive reply. I appreciate your efforts.

Now, back to the topic:

So, basically, the best option for Pakistan seems to be the KAAN fighter jet. It is planned to be a 5th-generation aircraft that is stealthy, features a powerful engine, generates significant electrical power, and can be modified into a two-seater version with Turkey's help for specific roles. (I know I am deliberately ignoring many factors like cost and technical challenges and it's early development stage status etc.)

Regarding China, it seems like going for a totally new solution, or perhaps go for a compromise solution of a non-stealthy and/or underpowered version.

 

[SiliconBit (silicon0000)]

PFX seems to be reincarnation of Project Azm.

My siasi conspiracy theory is,

2017: PML-N launched Project Azm.
2019: PTI didn't like it, shelved it.
2023: PML-N relaunched it as PFX.

For that reason, it's still in design phase since 2017 (8-years).

In Pakistan, Political people have nothing to do with these projects (unless you are talking about political people within the armed forces).

 

[Mohid Afzal]

2017: PML-N launched Project Azm.
2019: PTI didn't like it, shelved it.
2023: PML-N relaunched it as PFX.

let's leave politics out of this, besides, the tri services always do what they think is best

 

[FuturePAF]

I thought I had explained it clearly...
All right. I'll try a different way of explaining it.

Almost all modern UCAV/CCA (including those in presentations and those already in existence) employ stealth design. Their size and performance specifications are roughly equivalent to light/medium 5th-generation fighter jets.

I've already explained this. Due to limitations in modern communication technology and command and control methods, these UCAVs/CCAs require close-range control. This requires the command aircraft to have performance characteristics similar to those of the UCAVs/CCAs. At the very least, the command aircraft's flight speed, altitude, range, and endurance cannot differ too significantly from those of the UCAVs/CCAs.

Platforms like the "Embraer Lineage 1000E business jet" clearly cannot meet this requirement. Even if we were to extensively modify the JF-17B platform for this task, its performance would still be far superior.

Simply put, the command platform for UCAV/CCA operations needs to be based on a fighter jet platform. The capabilities of the command aircraft platform will affect the overall combat effectiveness of the MUM-T formation. This is also why the PLAAF uses the J-20S as its command platform. Single-seat 5th-generation fighter jets have some capabilities in this regard, but they cannot be compared to the combat effectiveness of dedicated two-seat command aircraft. (The F-35/J-35A also has some capabilities in this area).

Non-stealthy, heavy, two-seat 4.5th-generation fighter jets (such as the Chinese Flanker series fighters) could theoretically also be used for this purpose. However, due to their non-stealthy design, the command aircraft itself would be the first to be detected by the enemy and become a target for attack. But it could be feasible if used against enemies with weak air detection capabilities.
Light and medium-weight two-seat 4.5th-generation fighter jets (such as the JF-17B and J-10S), if used for this purpose, would have their operational range severely limited by the power generation capacity of their engines. This is not a reasonable option.

Many scientific and technical papers mention that modern advanced fighter jets are increasingly emphasizing their power generation capabilities, with a growing proportion of the engine's energy being allocated to power generation.

For the fighter jet industry, funding is not the only problem. Sufficient funds allow you to buy fighter jets, but when you want to manufacture them yourself, another issue arises: "industry."

Theoretically, it wouldn't be difficult for Saudi Arabia to provide the funding and Pakistan to obtain a complete fighter jet design based on a mature 5th-generation fighter jet platform from China, with deep customization. Alternatively, there wouldn't be much of a problem if China were to design a 5th-generation fighter jet specifically for Pakistan. Of course, Pakistan can be renamed to whatever name you like.

But, independently manufacturing these fighter jets is a completely different matter.

The fighter jet industry is also an industry. It must follow the most basic logic of industrial development.
The JF-17 project is a China-Pakistani cooperation project. Pakistan possesses all the technology for manufacturing the aircraft's airframe, but has not yet achieved 100% localization of its airframe manufacturing. I haven't even started talking about the more challenging manufacturing work involved in fighter jet subsystems.

Industrial development must follow its fundamental logic, diligently completing each basic task step by step.

How would it differ, if China approved and Saudis funded to build up the industries in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia around a design with a WS-10 rather than a WS-13. Industrial ToT, of technology and training engineers, is a given requirement, but I assume it comes down to how much support China wants to extend the program. As you also said, the issue is also about geopolitical stability; not wanting to push India into becoming America’s frontline state against China.

Considering Pakistan’s industrial limitations, any platform built would not be cutting edge in terms of stealth, but Pakistan would not invest so much, just to have an upgraded J-10 design. The Saudis would first off not fund it, and for Pakistan it would not make sense compared to other options like a single engine KAAN or the full KAAN; priced around that $80-120 million AI estimated price tag for a PFX based on a medium stealth design from China.

Would sharing the WS-10 engine technology, with the risk information on it be considered significant leakage to the point of being a consequential threat to Chinese national security?

 

[Michael]

So, basically, the best option for Pakistan seems to be the KAAN fighter jet. It is planned to be a 5th-generation aircraft that is stealthy, features a powerful engine, generates significant electrical power, and can be modified into a two-seater version with Turkey's help for specific roles. (I know I am deliberately ignoring many factors like cost and technical challenges and it's early development stage status etc.)

Since I am Chinese, it is not convenient for me to conduct an in-depth analysis of KAAN. ------ This would attract strong criticism from some people.

Regarding China, it seems like going for a totally new solution, or perhaps go for a compromise solution of a non-stealthy and/or underpowered version.

Chief designer of China's top fighter jets: "We have entered a realm of freedom in modern fighter jet design." ------ You can carefully consider the technical implications of this statement.

For China, completing the airframe design of a single-engine 5th-generation fighter jet is a very easy task. There's nothing difficult about it.

Any fighter jet subsystem, besides being used in that particular aircraft, is also used in other aircraft. Furthermore, the more countries/systems supplying subsystems for a fighter jet, the greater the impact of international diplomacy and the more complex the integration process becomes. Moreover, different systems are usually in a competitive relationship, and they won't provide core data to collaborating units. This leads to many technical problems.

Therefore, in-depth customized development based on existing mature platforms is the best option.

Would sharing the WS-10 engine technology, with the risk information on it be considered significant leakage to the point of being a consequential threat to Chinese national security?

The WS-10B has already been exported to Pakistan. This indicates that it has passed the review of relevant agencies. Even if all of its manufacturing technology were leaked, it would not have any impact on China's national security.

Given Pakistan's current industrial capabilities, even if AECC were to transfer the technology of the WS-10 series engines to Pakistan, Pakistan would be unable to independently manufacture them.

Even relatively simple assembly work would not be of much practical significance.
The WS-10 series engines are widely used in China. Its assembly line utilizes pulsed production line technology, resulting in high output and low cost. Pakistan is unable to afford the initial investment in a pulsed production line, nor can it absorb the enormous production capacity of such a line.
Traditional manual assembly lines have low output, high costs, and require highly skilled workers, resulting in a much lower product qualification rate compared to pulsed production lines.

So, what is the significance of Pakistan acquiring the technology for the WS-10 series engines?

 

[Ali_Baba]

So, what is the significance of Pakistan acquiring the technology for the WS-10 series engines?

Why would Pakistan want to do anything, if they can buy from China at a cheaper cost from its advanced pulse manufacturing line ? Logically, when it comes to sovereign military capability, cost is only part of the equation.

Countries need to develop their own strategic systems for strategic autonomy and defensive reasons. Relationships can change, the degree of support can change in a war will be less than what you expected or need. There are too many permutations to go through, but things you make at home you have more control over.

I personally see no value in WS-10 "manufacturing" in Pakistan right now given the infrastructure cost involved. Pakistan is better off learning how to design smaller engines first, ie develop the processes, intellectual property and core technology and outsource the manufacturing as the first phase, and once that part is done and you can field engines you have designed yourself, then move to local manufacturing of those designs. Pakistan should focus on designing and building engines for cruise missiles, SOW weapons and drones/UCAVs in Pakistan where the standard is still quite high, and use that to build the people and the knowledge before attempting jet fighter sized engines. Pakistan lacks serious specialized "design houses" right now, it is all too small and spread out over many many small companies and small governmental organizations. There needs to be consolidation such that Pakistan put in place the seeds to grow something like ASELSAN in Pakistan etc.

 

[Michael]

Why would any country want to do anything, if they can buy from China at a cheaper cost?

This is my response to the @FuturePAF's viewpoint.

In my personal opinion, developing aero engines at this stage is of no practical significance for Pakistan. Pakistan's top priority should be ensuring basic living standards for its citizens.

 

[Ak01]

Why would any country want to do anything, if they can buy from China at a cheaper cost?

Countries need to develop their own strategic systems for strategic autonomy and defense reasons. Relationships can change, the degree of support can change in a war will be less than what you expected or needed. There are too many permutations to go through, but things you make at home you have more control over.

I personally see no value in WS-10 "manufacturing" in Pakistan right now given the infrastructure cost involved. Pakistan is better off learning how to design engines first, ie the core technology and outsource the manufacturing as the first phase, and once that part is done, then move to local manufacturing. Pakistan should focus on designing and building engines for cruise missiles, SOW weapons and drones/UCAVs in Pakistan, use that to build the people and the knowledge before attempting jet fighter sized engines. Pakistan lacks serious specialised "design houses" right now, it is all too small and spread out over many many small companies. There needs to be consolidation such that Pakistan put in place the seeds to grow something like ASELSAN in Pakistan etc.

the problem is, with all of this is, there has to be a demand.

Its like how with CPEC, they built all this infrastructure, but in lots of places, nobody uses it.

In the same way, lets say Pakistan goes on an engine building adventure, we run into some issues:

Firstly, Lets say all the capability is there, what do we put them into and realistically how many can we order?

They say a new engine costs about 2bn usd to develop, but im guessing that is a number for someone with prior experience. If we add even a billion for cost overruns and facility setup etc, the question is, how many can we buy, or even sell?

who would we sell to? None of the jet producing countries.

How many would we buy? Realistically, as time goes on, the PAF is going to get smaller, they simply cant afford the costs associated with large scale procurement of NGFA's, especially if they're touching hundreds of millions of dollars per unit.

So we get stuck with the issue of scale. How many can we actually buy of offset this cost?

100? 200? i suspect, it may end up being one of the most expensive engines because we just simply dont have the scale, and nor the experience.

Look at India and Safran, they're committing to 7bn usd for AMCA engine development...

The same issue is found among ccruise missiles etc, we just dont have many, theres no large scale stockpiles etc, hence why we didnt see much action in sindoor, the situation is dire and will get worse over time

 

[bravo_1]

The same issue is found among ccruise missiles etc, we just dont have many, theres no large scale stockpiles etc, hence why we didnt see much action in sindoor, the situation is dire and will get worse over time

Heard that we are building our own indigenous CM engines after babur-2 (harbah ng, fateh-4 etc) that's why we are seeing alot of LM solutions also...

 

[Ak01]

Heard that we are building our own indigenous CM engines after babur-2 (harbah ng, fateh-4 etc) that's why we are seeing alot of LM solutions also...

the spur in LM solutions is because every vulture is giving it a shot, the barrier to entry is so low- find chinese supplier, apply company thapa, market and hope u can bag a contract.

heck, you even have energy companies in pak offering LM's. Its a low cost "eh whats the worst that can happen" move lol